It will come as no surprise to transportation professionals
that the US Interstate Highway System is in need of enormous investment to
maintain a state of good repair. A
lot of the system is more than 50 years old and is simply worn out from decades
of much heavier traffic than planned for.
A new report (here) from the Transportation Research Board, commissioned
by Congress, documents these needs in detail and makes a number of
recommendations for the future.
The central recommendation is that Congress establish a new
Interstate Highway System Renewal and Modernization Program (RAMP), on top of
existing programs, to fund the reconstruction of the system. How to pay for the new program? The authors recommend – wisely in my
opinion – enacting a major bump in the federal gas tax, with indexing, along
with greater freedom to toll existing highways. Consideration of
other revenue sources, such as a VMT fee or carbon pricing, would be postponed.
This report is a valuable building block for future surface
transportation legislation. I do,
however, have two major concerns.
First, the authors dance around the issue of adding lane
miles to the system. After
documenting the congestion on much of the system, they concede that adding
mainline capacity is “an expensive and often impracticable option.” They go further to note that: “Some
opponents believe that adding more urban freeway capacity will further
contribute to the outward expansion of metropolitan areas, increasing public
demand for still more roads and infrastructure. Some also contend that expanding capacity by widening
existing routes or building new lanes induces additional travel, leading to
increased highway VMT adding to congestion over time, as well [as] GHG
emissions.” Yeah, some do. Despite these modest nods to the issues
surrounding adding lane miles, the proposed RAMP program could be used to fund
them, and the authors are sympathetic to the demands raised by newer Sunbelt metropolitan
areas.
In my view, given the gravity of the climate emergency
facing us, the next surface transportation bill should include a ban on the use
of federal funds for mainline highway capacity increases. We really just. Should. Not. Be. Doing.
That. Instead, let’s fund transit
capacity increases in Interstate corridors.
Second, the authors recognize the importance of climate
change, but are mainly concerned with its effect on the functioning of the
existing system. These concerns
are well founded, and a robust approach to improving resilience is absolutely
needed. However, the mitigation
side of the equation – how to use the Interstate system to reduce GHG emissions
and promote sustainable travel – is given short shrift. They concede that: “As the backbone of the U.S.
transportation sector, the Interstate Highway System contributes to these
emissions and can thus play an important role in reducing them. Inasmuch as the
Interstate Highway System has facilitated low-density suburban development and
reliance on automobiles, a transformation to a low- and no-carbon
transportation system will increasingly mean that its planning is integrated
with the planning of low-carbon mobility options, from public transit to
zero-emission trucks.” They also
note the importance of charging stations, “the lack of which is an impediment to more wide-spread
adoption of zero- or low-emission vehicles in intercity transportation.” But what do the authors recommend? More study.
In my view, the next surface transportation bill should
commit to “electrifying” the entire Interstate Highway System (and the whole
National Highway System for that matter) by funding installation of fast (and
superfast, hyperfast, etc.) chargers at frequent intervals. This would be straightforward,
effective, and not all that expensive in the big scheme of things.
Kudos to TRB for pulling off such an important study. I hope the report (along with my
concerns!) helps to provide focus to what is likely to be a chaotic legislative
process for the next surface transportation bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment